Weird Liberal Head Show #150: Second Amendment- the Right to Bear Bazookas?

[Weird Liberal Head]

Run time: 05:16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B44jLYyhIZA   Posted on YouTube: September 02, 2010 By YouTube Member: WeirdLiberalHead Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: September 02, 2010 By DU Member: Weird Liberal Head Views on DU: 886

 
I celebrate my 150th show by asking a very provocative question (among many): do you and I have the right to bear bazookas?
Your friends at Unfree Republic think so.
Do we have the right to bear lasers? Swords? Bombs? Jet fighters? Nuclear weapons? Where do we draw the line?
What the heck is an "arm"?
What about gun safety? How should that be regulated?
Can the government take away your bullets?
Enjoy my 150th video, and I hope you find it as informative, provocative, and entertaining I do.
Thank you for watching and for your support!
Also thank our friends at "Free" Republic for giving me a good laugh.
Note: Yes, the extremists I was referring to are right-wing, not left-wing. Just making sure you guys know.
And before I go: if you ever see a kid in a chocolate lab shirt walking down the street with a bazooka- it's probably me!

[slackmaster]

1. I'm giving this an Unrec because you are apparently not familiar with the National Firearms Act

Google it.

The "line" on military vs. civilian arms was drawn in 1934.

[Weird Liberal Head]

2. Irrelevant

The Right is trying to overturn other federal laws, this is one they'll definitely overturn.
If they try to attempt to repeal the 14th Amendment, the NFA will DEFINITELY get their attention.
Besides, what about the gun safety and bullets issue?

[slackmaster]

4. Please show us specifically who is trying to overturn the NFA

I've been involved in discussions of gun control issues for more than 20 years. There are a few individuals here and there who give lip service to reversing the NFA, but nobody who matters takes them seriously. It's not going to happen. The NFA is simply not an important, current political issue.

Besides, what about the gun safety and bullets issue?

Gun safety comes from proper education and training in the safe handling and use of weapons. Because the percentage of adults who are competent to teach it is slowly falling, I believe it should be taught in public schools along with drug abuse education, sex ed, driver training, venomous reptile identification, etc.

I personally have taught gun safety to more than 100 people, most of them under age 20. How about you? What have you actually done about it?

Bullets are not an issue to me, as long as they are available.

[Weird Liberal Head]

5. Here You Are

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090103152827AALlV87

People want bazookas. They believe the more powerful the weapon they can get, the better.

[slackmaster]

6. Well, there couldn't possibly be a more authoritative, trustworthy source for honest discussion

Than Yahoo! Answers.

I surrender.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. You realize the NRA helped craft, and supported the NFA, right?

No, you didn't.

Gun safety can't be regulated per the 2nd, any more than your knowledge of this subject can be regulated per the 1st.

'Arms' is inclusive of ammunition, per the Supreme Court.


What the right (and pro-civil rights progressives) will overturn is the Hughes Amendment to the NFA, which closed the NFA registry in 1986. But the 1934 NFA itself isn't going anywhere. No one is calling to repeal it. It probably CAN'T be overturned, after Heller vs. DC.

[Weird Liberal Head]

3. Come on...

...do you really think a little federal regulation will slow the Tea Partiers down?

[veganlush]

7. The gun lovers (ok, some of them, not all but most)

..say that the second amendment was put in place to insure that the citizens ( in an organized militia?) could fight back against a tyrannical government. Why then, do they settle for a different set of "arms", an inferior set of arms, compared to what the military has? It's laughable still. the retorts have been lame when this has come up in earlier posts. It's pretty simple, did they intend for an armed citizenry to be a check on government power, or didn't they? Why can't the pro-gun types admit the truth and stop using those old arguments?

[provis99]

8. the 2nd Amendment guarantees a regulated National Guard.

where you gun fanatics get that there is ANY right for civilians to have weapons is beyond me. Wishful thinking and gun fetishism, I suppose.

[slackmaster]

10. That's gobbledygook. The current federally-controlled National Guard was formed in 1916

The word "regulated" in the Second Amendment doesn't mean what you think it means. You really should study up on history before attempting to make broad declarations about it.

where you... ...get that there is ANY right for civilians to have weapons is beyond me.

That right was understood to exist at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written. That is abundantly clear from their language. People have always had the right to have weapons.

It wasn't long ago that most people relied on weapons to protect their crops and to hunt for food, as well as for defending themselves from dangerous animals and other humans. My own stepfather did subsistence hunting when he was a child in the 1920s. How can anyone who has given the subject a moment's thought seriously claim that he and his family didn't have a right to have weapons?

Seriously, WTF is up with that?

:wtf:

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Technically the Militia Act of 1903 laid the foundations, but you are correct

1916 made it operational.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. So 'splain why the 2nd was ratified in 1791, and the National Guard was formed in 1903.

Goddamn time machines...

[slackmaster]

9. No, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the security of a free state just as it says

That means the security of all levels of society from the individual up through the state itself.

The composition and classes of the militias of the United States, and of the 50 individual states, are all defined in their laws.

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=militia&url=/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html for the federal level.

California's militias are defined in our Military and Veterans Code. See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

It's pretty simple, did they intend for an armed citizenry to be a check on government power, or didn't they?

The purpose of the entire Bill of Rights is clearly spelled out in its preamble.

December 15, 1791
Preamble

Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Underlining added by slackmaster to highlight the part that is most relevant to this discussion. The Second Amendment, like the other nine in the BoR, restrict the scope and power of government in order to prevent abuse of its powers.

That's what it's all about.

[Weird Liberal Head]

11. The Tea Party...

...will challenge the NFA . They will ask the Supreme Court to Constitutionally determine what an "arm" is.

[slackmaster]

12. Nonsense

They will ask the Supreme Court to Constitutionally determine what an "arm" is.

That question was settled in the 1930s.

[Weird Liberal Head]

13. The 14th Amendment

Was settled in the 1860's.

[slackmaster]

14. It's still settled

:hi:

[Weird Liberal Head]

15. If you say so.

Like I said, if you see your neighbor polishing their bazooka in their backyard, or using it for target practice...

[slackmaster]

16. If I see someone violating the law, I'll call the police

I suggest that you do the same.

Pardon me if this seems pedantic: The Tea Party people and their criticism of the provisions of the 14th Amendment that provide citizenship to everyone who is born here, do not amount to credible threats to peoples' civil rights or liberties. No Congress is going to seriously contemplate amending the Constitution for something like that.

The reason you hear so much about that foolishness is that people who make decisions about what gets published in the mainstream media believe that will sell the most newspapers, magazines, time spend viewing talking heads on cable TV, etc.

It's all bullshit.

[Weird Liberal Head]

17. At least we agree on that.

:)

[Weird Liberal Head]

21. A Conservative Agrees We Have the Right to Bear Bazookas!

"Bazookas ARE covered by the 2nd amendment.
Your brother SHOULD be allowed to have swords. Legally. Whether parents allow it is up to them.
If he can afford a tank. Seems impractical and not very cost effective though. And private property can not allow guns or weapons on their site."